Create a quiz attached to a lesson. passing_score is 0-100 (percent). Omit time_limit_seconds or max_attempts for unlimited.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| lesson_id | Yes | ||
| description | No | ||
| max_attempts | No | ||
| passing_score | No | ||
| shuffle_questions | No | ||
| time_limit_seconds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It provides useful semantics (passing_score as percent, omitting time_limit_seconds/max_attempts for unlimited), but does not disclose permissions, side effects, or return value. This is reasonable but incomplete for a create operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then adding essential parameter semantics. Every word earns its place without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 7-parameter create tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but not complete. It gives key parameter hints but misses return value, prerequisites, and deeper behavioral context, making it minimally viable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description partially compensates by explaining passing_score range and the 'omit for unlimited' behavior for two parameters. However, it does not clarify title, lesson_id, description, or shuffle_questions, leaving gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a quiz attached to a lesson', which specifies the verb, resource, and attachment context. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_quiz_question and update_quiz.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for creating quizzes in a lesson context, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. It offers some context ('attached to a lesson') but lacks direct comparison with siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool targets a distinct resource/action combination, and similar-looking tools are carefully differentiated in descriptions (e.g., get_course_structure vs list_course_modules, update_lesson vs update_lesson_content). There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between tools.
All tools use a consistent 'hivelearn_<verb>_<noun>' pattern with common verbs (get, list, create, update). The only minor deviation is 'add' vs 'create' (add_track_course vs create_track), but this is semantically appropriate and does not disrupt the overall pattern.
With 57 tools, the server is significantly over the recommended range and exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. While the broad domain (courses, community, analytics) justifies a large surface, this many tools makes selection overwhelming for agents and suggests a need for consolidation or sub-servers.
The tool surface covers create, read, and update for most core entities (courses, lessons, quizzes, tracks, posts, events, resources), plus publishing/verification and analytics. However, there are notable gaps: no delete operations for courses, lessons, modules, quizzes, posts, events, resources, or enrollments, and no way to remove a course from a track. These lifecycle holes are significant but not fatal for common workflows.
